BY ANY reasonable measure, America’s “war on drugs” is a disaster.
At home, ferocious
“mandatory sentencing” laws are the main reason for the country’s huge
prison population.
Almost one in four of the country’s 2m prisoners are there for drug
offences, with only a
limited chance of becoming productive members of society when they
are released (seearticle). Abroad, America is being sucked
into domestic conflicts, notably in Colombia; and
recently its forces shot down a “drugs” plane in Peru that turned out
to be carrying
missionaries. Meanwhile, drugs have never been easier to get in the
United States, with prices
lower, purity higher and experimentation among schoolchildren as rampant
as ever.

The Economist has long argued that drugs should be decriminalised.
Few politicians will go
that far, but many have edged in that direction. Back in January, George
Bush, who was once
busted for drink-driving and has always danced around the question
of whether he took drugs
in his misspent youth, seemed to be one of them. He argued that long
minimum sentences for
first-time drug users were not the best way “to occupy jail-space”.
He also worried about the
disparities between the sentences handed down for possessing crack
and those for powdered
cocaine—disparities that help explain why so many more blacks go to
prison than whites.

The distant hope that a pragmatic conservative might yet change
policy in a way that a
liberal Democrat might not dare have now been dashed. First, Mr Bush
announced that he
would enforce a law that will deprive drug offenders of federal grants
or loans for college
education (one of the better ways of getting them back on the straight
and narrow). Now the
White House is strongly hinting that it will appoint John Walters as
the new drugs “tsar”.

Mr Walters is to the drugs war what first world war generals were
to trench warfare. He does
not lack experience (he was a deputy drug tsar under Mr Bush’s father),
but his basic reaction
to the heavy losses sustained so far seems to be merely to increase
the size of the attack. Mr
Clinton’s drug policy, in his view, was too soft. The idea that American
sentences are too
harsh is “among the great urban myths of our time”. He points out that
only 8.8% of those in
state prisons are there for possession (which is true, but ignores
the fact that many of the
11.3% who are there for drug-trafficking are there for being little
more than lowly mules in
the production process). Another “urban myth” is the idea that the
“criminal justice system is
unjustly punishing young black men.”

In policy terms, Mr Walters opposes the idea of distributing syringes
to drug addicts as a way
of controlling the spread of HIV. He dislikes even the thought of limited
legalisation and
various sorts of treatment. “If anything,” he wrote recently, “the
trend of anti-drinking and
anti-smoking efforts today is to criminalise certain aspects of use
and to attack availability.”

It would be hard for Mr Bush to claim that he had no choice other
than to be a hardliner.
Voters have passed eight state ballots calling for marijuana to be
legalised for medical
purposes since 1996; Californians have also voted for an initiative
requiring treatment instead
of incarceration for a person’s first two drug offences. Tommy Thompson,
Mr Bush’s
secretary for health and human services, and several prominent Republican
governors, have
suggested that America should rethink its drugs policy. The shooting
down of the aircraft in
Peru, which killed an American missionary and her baby (and may have
delayed Mr
Walters’s appointment), has served as a powerful reminder to Americans
of the cost of the
overseas drug war.

Of course, Mr Walters may change his views once he is in office.
But a policy of increased
repression will surely result in thousands of people being thrown in
prison for sins that are
little worse than those alleged of the youthful George Bush: being
young and irresponsible.
An older and more responsible Mr Bush should reconsider his choice.

*****
Coming to a neighbourhood near you

May 3rd 2001
NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition

A small hitch with America’s policy of imprisoning more
people than anyother country on the planet: most have to be released
at some point

JOSE VASQUEZ has a scar on his right cheek and a conviction for
accidental manslaughter.
Arrested at the age of 16, he was convicted as an adult and locked
up for seven years in an
upstate New York prison. He should have been released earlier, but
the prison authorities
dished out “disciplinary sanctions” for a series of fights. At first
that meant solitary
confinement; then, for several months, being locked in his cell for
23 hours a day. The parole
board twice put off his release. Now Mr Vasquez is 25 years old, has
been free for two years,
but must do at least two more years of parole. Still, he counts himself
“pretty fortunate”.

He was lucky because prison, eventually, turned his life around.
“Prison made me realise I
made a mistake, it really moulded me.” Inside, he passed a high-school
exam, then a college
degree. In solitary confinement he read “poetry, novels, spy stories,
a lot of stuff, some
Freud,” and started to write. After a couple of years of casual jobs,
he now works at the
Osborne Association, a New York group that helps ex-inmates to find
jobs and homes. Last
year it placed 1,162 ex-prisoners with local employers—not bad, considering
that its average
client is 33 years old, has only a sixth-grade education and has done
four years behind bars.

Few are as lucky as Mr Vasquez. Each year, hundreds of thousands
of people leave
America’s prisons, but only a few thousand get help from groups such
as Osborne. Most are
ill-prepared for life outside, educated in little else but how to commit
crimes more efficiently.
Outside his job, Mr Vasquez unsurprisingly avoids cellmates who might
lead him into “shady
ways”.

States seem to put far more effort into locking up people than
trying to reform them. In New
York, Governor George Pataki has made a point of cutting prisoners’
education and other
services. Today, Mr Vasquez would be unable to “mould himself” with
a college degree in
prison. And, although vastly more criminals are jailed for drug offences
than in the past,
many states have cut efforts to rehabilitate inmates. The number of
inmates in drug
programmes dropped from 201,000 in 1993 to 99,000 in 1998.

As the economy turns down, jobs will be harder to get; and there
is an ever-rising number of
ex-prisoners chasing them. An estimated 614,000 people will leave prison
this year, says the
Bureau of Justice, compared with 423,800 in 1990 and 156,400 in 1980.
In all, there are now
nearly 4.5m people on probation (served instead of detention) or on
parole (served after
detention).

This army of ex-cons is the final, perhaps unforeseen, stage of
the country’s love affair with
mandatory sentencing. Ever since the mid-1980s, politicians have won
votes by promising to
get tough with criminals. The most prominent effect has been in the
law courts: limiting the
discretion of judges to make the punishment fit the crime, and imposing
harsh minimum
terms. Between 1986 and 1997, average prison sentences (in federal
prisons) increased from
39 months to 54 months.

California’s “three strikes” rule, which enforced a prison sentence
for anybody caught
committing a third felony (no matter how small), drove more into prison.
Punishments for
drug offences have been particularly severe. Drug-dealers can expect
five-year or ten-year
terms if caught. And the definition of drug-dealing is a harsh one,
sweeping in spouses of
dealers, whose crime may be simply failing to shop their husbands.
Drug convictions are the
reason for the massive growth in prison numbers.

Once behind bars, inmates find it increasingly difficult to get
out early. Parole boards are
stricter than ever, quickly returning criminals to complete their sentences
if, for example, they
are found to be taking drugs. And, since prisoners are less likely
than before to get time off
for good behaviour, they have less incentive to behave well.

The result: America’s prison population has boomed, to roughly
2m. One person in 142 is
behind bars, up from one in 218 a decade ago. America not only has
more people in prison
than anywhere else, but a higher incarceration rate (it recently passed
Russia). It now spends
$40 billion a year, roughly $20,000 per prisoner, on keeping offenders
behind bars.

What is the effect of having so many people passing through the
prison system? Some argue
that prison has helped to reduce the country’s crime rate, which has
been dropping steadily
for a decade, by as much as 8% a year. James Wilson, a criminologist
at the University of
California in Los Angeles, points out that the median number of offences
committed each
year by those going to jug is now 12.

Others, such as Alfred Blumstein, a professor at Carnegie Mellon,
say that locking people up
only partly explains the drop in crime. The rest is accounted for by
changing economic
fortunes, by shifting demography (when there are fewer young people,
there is less crime),
and by new fashions in drug abuse (crack cocaine is out of vogue, so
the violence associated
with its sale has declined).

Either way, with more people leaving prison, there are more ex-convicts
in society. Just as
enthusiasts for tough sentences once sought to tie the prison population
to lower crime rates,
now opponents argue that it is spells in prison that are helping to
increase criminal behaviour.
Recidivism rates have not changed for decades, but there are far more
ex-convicts: roughly
two-thirds of the ex-cons are likely to be rearrested within three
years, and 40% will probably
go back behind bars.

This debate will rumble on—not least because it is impossible
to prove the deterrent effect of
tougher sentences. But two things are happening. First, the crime rate
has begun to edge up
again in some places. In all, crime dropped by only 0.3% last year,
much less than in recent
years. In bigger cities, such as New York and Los Angeles, violent
crimes such as murder
(which tend to lead the way for other crime trends) are beginning to
rise again. Some of that
may be explained by a demographic bulge in young people, but it could
also be explained by
the large number of ex-cons in society.

Second, in a delayed reaction to the generally lower crime rates
of the past decade, the prison
population is beginning to peak. Having risen on average by 5.6% for
the past decade, last
year it grew by only 2.3%, the lowest annual increase since 1971. In
several states, including
New York and Massachusetts, the number of people coming out of prison
already exceeds
the number going in.

How this will affect public opinion remains to be seen. For most
of the past decade,
Americans have believed (wrongly) that the crime rate has been rising.
They have generally
supported building more prisons, partly because this brings jobs, but
also because of their
punitive effect. The reintroduction of chain-gangs, or dressing inmates
in pink uniforms and
giving them mind-numbing work, are all popular.

In a new book on prisons, “Going up the River: Travels in a Prison
Nation” (Random
House), Joseph Hallinan cites surveys showing that, 30 years ago, most
Americans saw the
purpose of prison as rehabilitation. Now they say it is punishment.
Among the fruits of that
policy are the bulging penitentiaries across the country—and the flood
of ex-cons now hitting
the streets.

(Note: The listings below may change.Check http://www.cpac.ca/english/listings/
for
the most currentlistings.)

On Wednesday March 7, 2001, the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas
brings
together delegates from more than 40 countries to discuss their most
pressing issues, including drugs.

The Fight Against Drugs is a two-night CPAC Special about Canada’s drug
trade from the legalization of marijuana, to law enforcement
initiatives,
to communities besieged by drug abuse.

CPAC kicks off the special on Wednesday night with a LIVE phone-in at
9 pm
ET where host Martin Stringer and his expert panel address the question
“Are We Winning the War on Drugs?” Join the discussion by calling toll-free
1-877-296-2722 or send us an e-mail at questions@cpac.ca.

At 10 pm ET, CPAC presents Drugs for a New Generation, a look at the
rave
drug Ecstasy, followed at 11 pm ET by a trip to Vancouver’s East Side
where
drugs are common, crime is rampant, and HIV infection among users is
the
highest in the western world.

Thursday night’s line-up includes reports on Toronto’s Drug Court at
7 pm
ET followed at 9 pm ET by a LIVE Forum where panellists address the
relevance of Canada’s drug laws.

At 10 pm ET, CPAC presents Addiction and Society with visits to two
effective, yet very different, drug treatment centres for youth. The
evening closes with Going to Pot, a look at the most controversial
of all
illegal drugs, marijuana. CPAC talks to undercover police officers,
health
officials, pro-legalization groups and users who smoke pot with increasing
defiance.

CPAC is funded by over 100 cable companies across Canada and is provided
free of charge to almost 8 million households in the interest of increasing
awareness and understanding of Canadian public policy issues.

For more information:
For complete listings or to watch us
LIVE:
Susan Kay
www.cpac.ca
(613) 364-1139
skay@cpac.ca

Ottawa Citizen, September 19, 2000

Day seeks free vote on drug legalization

MPs from all parties back controversial proposal

Tim Naumetz
The Ottawa Citizen

Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day has called for a Commons debate
over the legalization of drugs
followed by a free vote for all MPs on the controversial issue.

Supported in differing degrees by MPs from all parties, Mr. Day said
it's time Parliament tackled the
relationship between illegal drugs and organized crime.

"I think that debate on legalization of drugs should take place and
it should take place in the House of
Commons, and it should go ahead with a free vote," Mr. Day said in
response to questions at a news conference
in which he addressed a range of topics.

"The Canadian Alliance position is clearly to allow for that legalization
related to the alleviation of pain and for
medicinal purposes," added Mr. Day.

MPs from other parties, reacting in part to a series of Citizen stories
exploring the cost and effect of the war on
drugs led primarily by the United States, agreed it is time Canadian
lawmakers debated what only a few years
ago might have been considered unthinkable by mainstream politicians.

"One thing is very clear, the intensification of the effort to deal
with organized crime and shut down illegal
drugs has not been a success in the U.S. and it makes no sense for
us to just simply go down the same road,"
said NDP leader Alexa McDonough.

"We're willing to debate whatever will get us through a solution here
and that means needing to have sound
initiatives put forward by the government, and it means having the
evidence to guide us in decisions we make,"
Ms. McDonough added.

Organized crime and the related question of illegal drugs, which the
RCMP says are the main source of revenue
for most crime groups, were central to much of the activity on Parliament
Hill yesterday when the Commons
resumed after its summer recess.

The Bloc Quebecois, in response to the gangland-style shooting of a
Montreal crime reporter last week,
successfully steered a motion calling for a new law against criminal
gangs onto the Commons floor for a special
debate.

In the Senate, Conservative and Liberal members of a special committee
struck to study drug legalization held a
planning meeting for hearings that are to begin Monday. Tory Senator
Pierre-Claude Nolin, who persuaded the
Senate to launch the inquiry, is on record as saying the law that makes
marijuana possession a criminal offence
should be withdrawn.

MPs who were interviewed about the question of drug legalization avoided
taking a stand, but said the topic
should be aired.

"Any time that we have an opportunity to discuss something as topical
and as serious as drug use, particularly
the perpetration of organized crime in dealing drugs, we should certainly
do that on the floor of the House of
Commons," said Conservative MP Peter MacKay, the party's justice critic
and a former Crown prosecutor.

Liberal MP Paul Szabo, who chaired a Commons committee that five years
ago studied drug laws in Canada,
flatly dismissed the idea, saying: "This is a non-starter, it's a non-starter
for me."

Mr. Szabo said the committee he led in 1995 heard arguments in favour
of drug legalization but "the evidence,
not just anecdotal evidence from people and how they feel, but rather
from health experts, from social experts,
were in total consensus that this would be a terrible direction to
go in and consider. The government agreed and
I'm sure the government still agrees."

Government House Leader Don Boudria was unwilling even to discuss the
idea of a debate. Asked whether he
thought the Commons should take it up, Mr. Boudria replied "not particularly,"
and quickly walked off.

Ottawa Centre Liberal Mac Harb, however, who has tabled a private member's
bill calling for legalized
prostitution in designated red-light districts under government control,
agreed a debate should be held.

"Absolutely," said Mr. Harb. "I have my share of problems (with drugs)
in downtown Ottawa, and I think it's
the same situation all across the country."

Bloc MP Yvan Loubier, who sought police protection last year because
of threats from underground marijuana
growers in his riding, said he supports a debate and is willing to
entertain drug legalization if the benefits can
be shown.

"If the proof is given that it would contribute to crack the criminal
organizations, I think I would support it, but
at the moment, I don't have the proof," said Mr. Loubier.

Mayor Philip Owen says the city must adopt a new strategy. ``What we've
been doing so far is not working,'' he said.

Safe-injection sites for drug users and providing free heroin for hard-core
addicts on a trial basis are among the strategies the
city of Vancouver is recommending in a new drug policy that is the
first of its kind in North America.

The plan, to be made public today, also includes drug courts that would
put users into treatment instead of jail, special
treatment beds for young people, day centres for drug users outside
the Downtown Eastside, testing of street drugs to help
prevent overdoses, and more police to target upper-level drug dealers.

The plan is the city's response to what Mayor Philip Owen calls an unprecedented
drug crisis in which people are dying by
the hundreds, while many more are getting hepatitis C and HIV through
intravenous-injection drug use.

``These trends must stop,'' Owen said. ``We cannot ignore this issue.
We cannot incarcerate our way out of it and we cannot
liberalize our way out of it. This is an international crisis that
is scaring an awful lot of cities.''

Added the mayor: ``Doing nothing is not an option. What we've been doing
so far is not working.''

The report accompanying the recommendations notes that Vancouver spends
more money per person on dealing with illicit
drugs than any other place in Canada.

In 1997, the estimated direct costs of law enforcement and health care
related to drug use was $96 million a year.

The new plan, a copy of which was obtained by The Vancouver Sun, contains
24 recommendations intended to emphasize
equally strategies for prevention, treatment, legal enforcement, and
harm reduction, a strategy used in some European cities
that is known as the four-pillar approach.

Like European cities that pioneered it, Vancouver is also taking the
position that it has to act even if others are not willing to
yet. And, like them, it is also clearly shifting to a position that
says drug addiction is a health issue, not a criminal issue.

The plan does not commit the city to spending any money or to undertaking
any immediate, controversial action.

All but two of the recommendations are labelled as the responsibility
of other agencies: the federal and provincial
governments, the Vancouver/Richmond health board and the Vancouver
police department.

The report restricts city actions to creating a ``Drug Action Team''
to coordinate responses to neighbourhood drug issues, and
to supporting some kind of process that improves local neighbourhoods'
ability to fight back against drug problems.

But Owen said the city already spends $10 million a year on programs
meant to deal with the drug issue, such as housing and
service centres in the Downtown Eastside. As well, he said, the federal
and provincial governments, which have the money
and authority to actually do something, are looking to the city for
leadership and a plan that they can throw themselves behind.

``The onus is on us to deliver that to them,'' said Owen.

The policy is only a draft so far. It will be circulated to the public
for comment until the end of January, with the final report,
reflecting public reaction, due in the spring.

But the policy, which sets out a multi-pronged approach that contains
some elements that are relatively radical for mainstream
politicians, is sure to draw both praise and fire from all sides.

Some will say it caters to drug users and perpetuates the problems by
suggesting the city consider safe injection sites, a
heroin-maintenance experiment, and clinical trials for other medications
that could substitute for heroin and cocaine.

Others will say the city has backed away from doing anything concrete
to start tackling the problem immediately and has
caved in to conservative forces by recommending drug courts.

Owen says that, while public reaction is important, the city will not
agree to a final strategy that doesn't have all four pillars in
place.

``We're going to be very open, but we're not going to go without the
holistic, comprehensive approach. It's going to be
controversial, but there's no turning back.''

Owen said other cities are looking to Vancouver for leadership.

``Everyone has a drug problem, all the big-city mayors have talked about
this. Every single one is looking for solutions. But
nobody is prepared to stand up to the plate.''

Vancouver's problems have been highlighted because the drug scene is
so open, Owen said, but everyone is struggling.

Owen said he's already been contacted by the mayors of Yokohama and
Seattle for a copy of Vancouver's drug strategy.

``We see it all around the Pacific Rim. As soon as you get a prosperous
economy, the drug dealers move in.''

VANCOUVER'S DRUG STRATEGY AND HARM REDUCTION PLAN

The city's four goals with its drug strategy:

- Push the federal and provincial governments to act.

- Restore public order, particularly at Main and Hastings.

- Tackle the drug-related health crisis.

- Establish a single co-ordinator who can pull everyone together to
get things done

Prescribing drugs for addicts -- not just providing safe-injection
sites -- has to be part of any
comprehensive plan to tackle Vancouver's drug problem,
Premier Ujjal Dosanjh said
Tuesday.

Dosanjh said even if safe-injection facilities were
available, addicts would still need to
steal to get the money for drugs and would still have to
buy an illegal substance in an illegal
transaction.

"Safe-injection sites per se won't do the job," the premier told
The Vancouver Sun's editorial
board. "If there are people who can't be stabilized or cured
or dealt with satisfactorily in any
other way, then we should look at medicinal prescription of the
drugs that they might be
dependent on under safe conditions."

He said politicians -- and newspapers -- need to have the courage
to speak out for what's
right, not just what's politically saleable.

But, he said, "it takes more courage than I have so far seen."

Dosanjh, like everyone else who has ever recommended giving drugs
to addicts, said it's
something that should only be done after all other options have
failed, including drug courts,
methadone treatment services, and other programs that try to
get people off drugs.

But he said politicians and bureaucrats tend to shy away from
advocating even that
restricted form of drug prescription because they fear it's not
politically saleable.

"I think at some point, political expediency has to end and the
real concern has to take
hold."

Dosanjh said the failure to come out clearly and say hardcore
addicts need drugs, not just
safe-injection sites, is a soft spot in Vancouver's proposed
new drug strategy, but otherwise,
he said, he fully supports the city's proposal.

The city's 31-point plan, announced Nov. 22, says Vancouver's
drug problem should be
tackled through a "four-pillar approach," common to some European
cities, that would
improve enforcement, treatment, harm-reduction and prevention.
That means everything
from more policing to drug courts to more treatment beds to a
consideration of safe-injection
sites.

The most public attention has gone to the proposal's cautious
recommendations to consider
safe-injection sites and to endorse a North American scientific
experiment now in the
planning stages that would prescribe heroin to a select group
of addicts -- an experiment that
is unlikely to begin for at least a couple of years, if at all.

Dosanjh said the city's plan is largely a reiteration of ideas
in the Vancouver Agreement.

The Vancouver Agreement is a joint city, provincial and federal
program to tackle the city's
crime, drug and poverty problems, which are heavily concentrated
in the Downtown
Eastside.

The three levels of government recently announced the first phase
of action, which included
more health-treatment centres for drug users in the Downtown
Eastside, more policing, and
some economic-renewal programs.

However, Health Minister Corky Evans confirmed that Tuesday's
announcement of
substantial new money for health care doesn't mean any dollars
for more treatment beds,
since the addiction-services department is part of the children
and families ministry.

And Dosanjh said that, although he's had several suggestions in
the past three weeks that the
department be moved to health so it could benefit from the almost
$8.6-billion health budget,
he wasn't prepared to start shifting departments in an editorial
board meeting.

But he did say the province is ready to move, with the proviso
that the federal government
has to come to the table with some dollars as well.

The province has managed to put $1.8 million into new health and
addiction services
through the Vancouver Agreement, but that's a long way from the
$20 to $30 million the city
has said needs to be spent on its comprehensive drug strategy.

Marijuana cultivation law suspended: Second province tells
Ottawa to change pot law

An Alberta judge has struck down a portion of federal law that prohibits
the cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes,
saying it's unconstitutional.

Justice Darlene Acton struck down Section 7 (1) of the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act Monday, but stayed the
decision for a year.

That time, she said, would allow the federal government ample opportunity
to correct the breach of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms she ruled has been against marijuana crusader Grant Wayne
Krieger.

Acton, as part of the decision, also stayed cultivation charges against
Krieger, 46, who has multiple sclerosis, and granted him
an exemption under Section 56 of the act so he can now legally grow
the illicit drug for his own personal use.

The judge said exemptions permit citizens who require cannabis marijuana
for health reasons to possess the drug, yet what
``triggers the absurdity'' is that there is no legal source for them
and they are forced to grow it or purchase it illegally off the
street.

This is the second blow to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act this
year.

Last summer, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared the section of the
law dealing with possession to be unconstitutional and
gave Terry Parker the right to ingest marijuana to fight his severe
epilepsy.

The Toronto man claimed pot eliminated up to 80 weekly seizures.

In her decision Monday, Acton noted that as of Oct. 2, Health Minister
Allan Rock has granted 72 exemptions nationally. He

also turned down one person and intended to refuse five other applications.
Krieger has not applied.

``It would be inhumane to not grant Mr. Krieger an exemption to grow
marijuana for his own medical use,'' the judge told
court in reading her decision.

``He has proven to court he needs it and, although he hasn't tried every
available option, no other conventional drugs have
been successful for him.''

However, the judge did not go quite as far as Krieger and his lawyer
had hoped.

She dismissed a second application that would have permitted Krieger
to sell the marijuana he grows to others who also
require it for medical reasons but may not have a Health Canada exemption.

The judge said she did not find such a limit unjustified and added society
would not be protected adequately if anyone could
distribute otherwise illegal drugs to whomever they chose.

Krieger says he doesn't profit from selling marijuana to sick and dying
people. His customers, members of his Universal
Compassion Club, are required to have letters from their doctors outlining
their illnesses.

He has been to court more than 30 times in his battle to legally grow,
smoke, eat, and supply marijuana for medicinal
purposes. In his last court appearance, Krieger was fined $350 after
pleading guilty to two charges of violating court orders.
He had been ordered to report to a probation officer monthly as part
of an 18-month suspended sentence imposed in Regina
earlier this year for trafficking.

In 1996, Krieger drew international attention when he was arrested in
Amsterdam for trying to transport a kilogram of
marijuana back to Canada.

He was jailed for two weeks in August 1999 when he refused to stop growing
and supplying marijuana to ill people.

He was fined twice for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The appeal court said federal law fails to recognize that pot can be
used for medicinal purposes by those suffering from
chronic illnesses.

The court gave Parliament one year to rewrite the drug legislation so
that sick patients can get medicinal cannabis. Otherwise,
there will no longer be any law prohibiting marijuana possession in
Ontario, the judges said.

Krieger's defence lawyer, Adriano Iovinelli, said Acton has made it
``very clear'' that if the government doesn't react she'll
strike down the section of the act and allow cultivation in Alberta.
``I'd be very surprised if the government doesn't react,''
Iovinelli said. ``She anticipates she'll get a reaction.''

******
Toronto Globe and Mail Tuesday, December 12

Judge suspends law against cultivating
marijuana

Canadian Press

Calgary — A law that prohibits the
cultivation of marijuana is unconstitutional because it doesn't allow for
medical use of the drug, an Alberta judge ruled Monday.

Justice Darlene Acton threw out a charge of cultivating marijuana against
Grant Krieger, who grows and ingests pot to alleviate the symptoms of
his multiple sclerosis.

"Today is a great victory for Mr. Krieger," said defence lawyer Adriano
Iovinelli.

"It's another message to the government of Canada that they have to
address this issue more thoroughly and Section 56 exemption just
doesn't cut it."

Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act allows the
federal health minister to exempt Canadians from being charged with
growing and possessing marijuana for medical use or research.

But the problem with the exemption is that there isn't a legal marijuana
supply, a fact that "triggers the absurdity," Judge Acton told court.

"The irony is that there is no source in Canada for marijuana at this time,"
she said in her ruling.

Judge Acton gave Parliament 12 months to change the drug legislation
so that sick patients can get medicinal cannabis.

But Mr. Iovinelli doubts the government will take a year to rewrite the
law, because if it doesn't Judge Acton's ruling means it would then be
legal to grow marijuana in Alberta.

"I'd be very surprised if the government doesn't react to this," he said.

Mr. Krieger, 46, was charged with trafficking and cultivating marijuana.
He argued the charges should be tossed on the grounds that growing
and distributing pot for medicinal use is guaranteed under the charter
section that provides for liberty and security.

He maintains smoking and eating marijuana helps control his symptoms
of multiple sclerosis, a progressive, chronic disease of the nervous
system that causes tremors, paralysis and speech defects.

"It's more beneficial than any kind of pharmaceutical I've put in my body
to date," Mr. Krieger said outside court.

"It allows me the ability to function as normally as I can with
progressively chronic multiple sclerosis."

Judge Acton did not dismiss trafficking charges against Mr. Krieger. He
will be arraigned on those next month.

Mr. Krieger says he doesn't profit from selling marijuana to sick and
dying people. His customers, members of his Universal Compassion
Club, are required to have letters from their doctors outlining their
illnesses.

He has been to court more than 30 times in his battle to legally grow,
smoke, eat, and supply marijuana for medicinal purposes.

In his last court appearance, Mr. Krieger was fined $350 after pleading
guilty to two charges of violating court orders. He had been ordered to
report to a probation officer monthly as part of an 18-month suspended
sentence imposed in Regina earlier this year for trafficking.

In 1996, Mr. Krieger drew international attention when he was arrested
in Amsterdam for trying to transport a kilogram of marijuana back to
Canada.

He was jailed for two weeks in August, 1999 when he refused to stop
growing and supplying marijuana to ill people. He was fined twice for
possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Last summer, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared Canada's cannabis
law to be unconstitutional and gave Terry Parker the right to ingest
marijuana to fight his severe epilepsy.

Health Minister Allan Rock has exempted more than 70 ill Canadians
from being charged with possessing and growing pot under section 56 of
the federal Controlled Drugs and Substance Act. Five applicants for
exemption have been rejected.

Vancouver Residents Soften Views On Drugs

Pubdate: Wed, 31 Jan 2001
Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)

VANCOUVER RESIDENTS SOFTEN VIEWS ON DRUGS

Public support for decriminalizing marijuana
has grown while an exceptional number back
city's proposed strategy on drugs, poll
shows

Vancouver residents have become tired
of the traditional war on drugs.

In just three years, support among city
residents for decriminalizing marijuana has grown
from 47 per cent to 57 per cent.
An unusually high 61 per cent say they support the
medical use of heroin for drug treatment.

And an exceptional number support the
city's proposed new drug strategy, even endorsing
the plan's most controversial recommendation
-- setting up a task force to consider setting
up safe drug-injection sites.

Those were the results from a $14,000
public-opinion survey conducted for the city of
Vancouver in December to give city staff
and politicians information about public reaction
to the proposed drug strategy announced
in November.

The strategy emphasizes a "four-pillar"
approach, with improvements suggested for
enforcement, treatment, harm reduction
and prevention that would help save lives, keep
people healthier, reduce drug use, and
improve public order in the open drug markets of
Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

Pollster Joan McIntyre, whose company
Joan McIntyre Market and Opinion Research
conducted the survey in conjunction
with McIntyre/Mustel, said the overwhelming support
for the city's strategy was unusual
for her to see in polling.

"The results are very dramatic.
It's rare to see results that are so positive."

Many contentious social public-policy
issues produce polarized results in B.C. polls, she
said, with the public often splitting
50-50.

But she said the kind of responses people
gave to the poll's several dozen questions about
various aspects of the city's policy
showed support at a level equal to the kind usually seen
for issues such as universal access
to health care or wildlife preservation.

Even the recommendation that has been
the most controversial part of the 30-point plan, to
set up a task force to consider developing
safe-injection sites, got unusual support, although
it got less support than other parts
of the plan, she said.

Thirty-eight per cent of people strongly
supported the idea -- significantly more than the 26
per cent of those who both strongly
or somewhat opposed it -- and another 33 per cent
supported it generally.

The only other city strategy that got
a similar lukewarm response was the proposal to
expand and decentralize needle-exchange
services.

Again, although support was lower than
for other parts of the strategy, it still got 68 per cent
support.

Simon Fraser University Professor Bruce
Alexander, author of Peaceful Measures:
Canada's Way Out of the War on Drugs,
says he isn't surprised by the survey's findings.

"It's no shocker," said the professor,
who sees similar trends in the opinions of the students
he teaches.

"People are willing to listen to both
sides of the argument," he said, noting that public fear
often prevents rational discussion of
the social costs and actual danger of drugs like
marijuana and heroin.

"The public is becoming less knee-jerk
about it."

McIntyre agreed, citing the results of
a survey she did for the city three years ago to gauge
public attitudes to drugs, when the
mayor's coalition on crime and safety was just
beginning.

At that time, the city was polarized
on the issue of marijuana, with 47 per cent supporting
decriminalization and 41 per cent opposing
it.

That has now shifted, so that 57 per
cent of the city residents surveyed supported or
strongly supported decriminalization,
while opposition dropped to 31 per cent.

People are still as opposed to legalizing
heroin as they were three years ago, with 74 per
cent still opposed, and only small increases
in those supporting it.

But the new poll showed considerable
support for using heroin for drug treatment.
Thirty-two per cent of those surveyed
strongly supported it, another 29 per cent somewhat
supported it, and only 23 per cent were
opposed. The issue of giving medically prescribed
heroin to long-time addicts has received
a significant amount of media attention in
Vancouver over the past three years,
as the city and community groups have looked around
the world to places like Switzerland
and Germany for solutions to the city's drug problem.

The survey comes at a critical time for
the city. It is currently holding forums to get public
response to its plan, with the intention
of finalizing its drug strategy by April.

The strategy has deeply divided council,
with Councillors Lynne Kennedy, Don Lee and
Daniel Lee opposed, and rookie Councillor
Sandy McCormick showing signs of
sympathizing with the opposition.
On the other side, Mayor Philip Owen has championed
the strategy, staking his political
career on it some say, with Councillors Jennifer Clarke,
George Puil and Sam Sullivan from his
own party in support, along with Councillors Tim
Louis and Fred Bass from the opposition
party.

A coalition of business owners and residents
in neighbourhoods surrounding the Downtown
Eastside has been militantly opposed
to the city's strategy, saying it puts too much emphasis
on harm reduction and not enough on
prevention, treatment and enforcement.

In response to questions from councillors,
McIntyre said the poll wasn't detailed enough to
allow her to say how attitudes varied
from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. She also
couldn't say what percentage of the
respondents came from Vancouver's high number of
ethnic minority households where English
is a second language.

A few questions in the survey showed
some slight regional differences.

For instance, people east of Main were
the most in support of a task force to look at
establishing safe-injection sites, with
those from the downtown showing the highest level of
opposition, and west siders in the middle.

The survey did not, however, indicate
that people do not believe in enforcement. Questions
about increasing enforcement, instituting
mandatory treatment for repeated criminals who
are addicts, and setting up drug courts
all got extremely high levels of support, in the high 80
per cent range.

The pollsters surveyed 300 residents
and said the results are considered accurate within plus
or minus 5.7 percentage points, 19 times
out of 20.

Seventy-seven per cent of Vancouverites,
according to a public opinion survey
commissioned by the city, favour Mayor
Philip Owen's specific plan to tackle the problem
of illegal hard drugs. Wow! With
this level of public support, we expect some real action in
the anti-drug crusade. And we
expect it soon.

Premier Ujjal Dosanjh has already voiced
surprisingly forceful support, and Mr. Owen
should not, in our view, have much difficulty
getting both the Victoria cabinet and the one in
Ottawa to get behind his four-pillar
strategy to curtail illicit drug use, to prevent hundreds of
drug-induced deaths, to reduce crime
and to generally make our city more livable.

The first three pillars -- prevention,
treatment and enforcement -- embody common sense
approaches that virtually everyone can
get behind. So there is a broad consensus about the
wisdom of preventing drug use through
education and awareness programs, treating addicts
through a mixture of detox centres,
outpatient counselling and residential treatment facilities,
and enforcing the law in the Downtown
Eastside. Related is the support for setting up drug
courts to deal much more swiftly and
effectively with addicted criminals. The support for
mandatory drug treatment for those found
guilty of crimes is also high.

The fourth pillar, harm reduction, requires
more of a leap of faith, and we're pleased at how
many Vancouver residents have considered
evidence that it works well elsewhere and have
thrown their weight behind it.
It recognizes that some people will remain addicts, and it
proposes to help them remain healthy
by providing needle exchanges and even safe
injections sites.

Premier Dosanjh has, to his credit, not
only supported needle exchanges and safe injection
sites, but he goes further to endorse
the idea of providing addicts with drugs to feed their
habit. This is the most controversial
approach of all, but it is a proven way to undercut the
criminals that drive the drug trade.

It's immensely encouraging to have two
levels of government on-side already, and to see
them given the endorsement of so many
voters represented by the polls. But, without
Ottawa's participation, effective action
will likely be stalled.

The feds have, encouragingly, already
signalled their intention to set up drug courts. We
hope this happens sooner rather than
later, and that Ottawa does not stop there, but joins its
municipal and provincial partners in
a comprehensive and coordinated strategy.

Of course, even this broad level of public
endorsement doesn't mean everyone's happy with
Mr. Owen's plan. The Community
Alliance, a coalition of business owners and residents
of the Downtown Eastside, are staunchly
opposed. They say putting emphasis on harm
reduction means not enough on prevention,
treatment and enforcement.

While the concerns of the Community Alliance
should be heard during the public forums
being held throughout the city, we don't
think this opposition is any excuse to abandon the
plan. If opponents raise valid
questions about some component of the strategy and are
backed up by facts, the points they
make should be taken into consideration in the final
design and implementation of the program.
But Mr. Owen and his team have shown real
leadership, and they have the backing
of the majority. We urge them to pursue the broad
goals of their plan vigorously and quickly.

While the drug problem is visible mainly
in the Downtown Eastside, it is by no means
confined to this small area. Out
of of the average of 147 deaths that occur each year due to
drug use in Vancouver, only 62 are in
the Downtown Eastside. The West End has 30
deaths a year, and others occur in Kitsilano,
Point Grey and Mount Pleasant, among other
areas. Indeed, few if any Vancouver
neighbourhoods are immune from the devastating
effects of drug use. And it costs
this province about $96 million each year to deal with the
problem.

At this juncture, neither the city, the
province nor feds have committed any money for this
plan. With Vancouverites signalling
such a strong support, it's time they did.

A Penticton Mountie who accepted money
from drug dealers in exchange for police
information was jailed for two years
Tuesday.

Former Const. Mark Webb, who pleaded
guilty to possessing marijuana for the purposes of
trafficking and obstructing justice,
put himself at the mercy of the court and asked for house
arrest by way of a conditional sentence.

But Judge Brian Weddell said RCMP officers
"face a different yardstick" than ordinary
citizens and imposed the jail term.

"( RCMP ) officers are people of integrity
and trustworthiness. When such a person
engages in criminal activity, it strikes
at the very fabric of this country," the judge said.

"A conditional sentence is inadequate
to express the heinousness of this offence."

Webb's former partner Const. Terry
Jacklin said incarceration is the deterrence Webb
needed.

"You trust your life with your fellow
officers," he said. "You try to achieve the same goal.
After he leaves the office, the goal
is changed."

Webb's wife tearfully handed him an overnight
bag before he joined the sheriff to go to the
courthouse cells. The couple has
a young child.

Jacklin said it's "interesting" that
Webb's wife became pregnant soon after his arrest in 1999.

"It may entice the court to be lenient,"
Jacklin said.

Webb, 32, was a member of the RCMP's
plainclothes division in the summer of 1998 when
he took part in a charade with Penticton
drug dealers so he could confiscate 30 pounds of
marijuana and return it later for cash.

He arranged with Norman Melcoski to steal
the pot from Ryan Brown in a gas station
parking lot. Brown showed up with
three garbage bags of pot in his car trunk as Melcoski
carried a bag of paper that Brown believed
was $90,000 cash.

When Brown popped open his trunk, Webb
drove up in an unmarked police car, flashed his
badge and ordered Brown into his car.
He sent Melcoski away before he seized the three
bags of pot and put them in his vehicle.
He told Brown he'd give him a break in exchange
for information in future and let him
go.

Webb stored the pot in his Summerland
home and gave it days later to Shaun Sunduk.

Brown, desperate to make amends with
his supplier, unknowingly bought the same pot for
more than $50,000. Sunduk gave
Webb $11,000 for his help in the theft, which he
deposited in his bank account and used
to pay down a debt.

Brown later learned of the rip-off and
blew the whistle on Webb when arrested for an
unrelated drug offence. The charge
was dropped in exchange for his evidence.

A few months later, Webb tipped off Sunduk
that police were about to raid his marijuana
grow operation on Naramata Road.
When officers moved in, they found pot-growing
equipment but no plants, which had been
moved out in a hurry.

In April 1999, he told Sunduk police
were about to use an infrared gun that traces the heat
generated from marijuana grow lights,
and suggested turning them off. Police found nothing
and Sunduk paid Webb $1,000.

Like Brown, Sunduk received immunity
from prosecution in return for his evidence.

Webb's motive was greed, said Crown counsel
Duncan Campbell. He planned his crimes
over a long period, betrayed his fellow
officers and thwarted police efforts.

Webb apologized to his former colleagues
and the court. He has quit the RCMP and is now
making $19,000 a year , a third of his
former salary, said his lawyer David Martin.

Webb will be incarcerated in a secure
facility that will keep him away from the general
prison population.

Former Penticton cop handed two-year
term for role in theft of marijuana and for helping
drug dealer avoid police raids

KELOWNA - A Penticton Mountie who accepted
money from drug dealers in exchange for
police information was jailed for two
years Tuesday.

Former Const. Mark Webb, who pleaded
guilty to possessing marijuana for the purposes of
trafficking and obstructing justice,
asked for house arrest by way of a conditional sentence.

But Judge Brian Weddell said RCMP officers
"face a different yardstick" than ordinary
citizens and imposed the jail term.

"( RCMP ) officers are people of integrity
and trustworthiness. When such a person
engages in criminal activity, it strikes
at the very fabric of this country," the judge said. "A
conditional sentence is inadequate to
express the heinousness of this offence."

Webb's former partner Const. Terry
Jacklin said incarceration is the deterrence Webb
needed.

"You trust your life with your fellow
officers," he said. "You try to achieve the same goal.
After he leaves the office, the goal
is changed."

Webb's wife tearfully handed him an overnight
bag before he joined the sheriff to go to the
courthouse cells.

The couple has a young child. Jacklin
said it's "interesting" that Webb's wife became
pregnant soon after his arrest in 1999.

"It may entice the court to be lenient,"
Jacklin said.

Webb, 32, was a member of the RCMP's
plainclothes division in the summer of 1998 when
he took part in a charade with Penticton
drug dealers so he could confiscate 13.5 kilograms
of marijuana and return it later for
cash.

He arranged with Norman Melcoski to steal
the pot from Ryan Brown in a gas station
parking lot. Brown showed up with
three garbage bags of pot in his car trunk as Melcoski
carried a bag of paper that Brown believed
was $90,000 cash.

When Brown popped open his trunk, Webb
drove up in an unmarked police car, flashed his
badge and ordered Brown into his car.
He sent Melcoski away before he seized the three
bags of pot and put them in his vehicle.
He told Brown he would give him a break in
exchange for information in future and
let him go.

Webb stored the pot in his Summerland
home and gave it days later to Shaun Sunduk.
Brown, desperate to make amends with
his supplier, unknowingly bought the same pot for
more than $50,000. Sunduk gave
Webb $11,000 for his help in the theft, which he
deposited in his bank account and used
to pay down a debt.

Brown later learned of the ripoff and
blew the whistle on Webb when arrested for an
unrelated drug offence. The charge
was dropped in exchange for his evidence.

A few months later, Webb tipped off Sunduk
that police were about to raid his marijuana
grow operation on Naramata Road.
When officers moved in, they found pot-growing
equipment but no plants, which had been
moved out in a hurry.

Police were outraged when they found
out Webb had leaked news of the drug raid.

"We could have been set up," said Jacklin.
"He could have put himself in a position so he
wouldn't go in the door. There
are many ways to booby-trap a marijuana grow op."

When Webb later investigated a Crime
Stoppers tip that Sunduk was growing pot at another
residence, he cancelled it, suggesting
there was nothing there.

In April 1999, he told Sunduk police
were about to use an infrared gun that traces the heat
generated from marijuana grow lights
and suggested turning them off. Police found nothing
and Sunduk paid Webb $1,000.

Like Brown, Sunduk received immunity
from prosecution in exchange for his evidence.

Webb's motive was greed, said Crown counsel
Duncan Campbell. He planned his crimes
over a long period, betrayed his fellow
officers and thwarted police efforts to crack down on
the growing number of marijuana operations
in Penticton.

Webb apologized to his former colleagues
and the court. He has quit the RCMP and is now
making $19,000 a year - a third of his
former salary, said his lawyer David Martin. He's a
"kind young man," but naive, Martin
said.

Webb will be incarcerated in a secure
facility that will keep him away from the general
prison population.

Strange Death For A Drug Cop

Pubdate: Wed, 17 Jan 2001
Source: National Post (Canada)

STRANGE DEATH FOR A DRUG COP

Constable Barry Schneider Preached The
Anti-drug Message To Kids In The Comox Valley
With A Missionary's Zeal. That's
Why News That He Died Of A Heroin And Cocaine
Overdose, Not A Heart Attack, Raises
So Many Questions

COURTENAY, B.C. - Not long before
he was killed by a speedball -- a heady mix of
heroin and cocaine so powerful it can
overwhelm even a hard-core addict -- the handsome
RCMP officer stood at the front of a
meeting room and took questions from children.

Barry Schneider, a 23-year veteran of
the force who was such a straight arrow he skipped
parties in high school, was renowned
in the community for his high energy, his sense of
humour -- and his sincerity.

He connected with kids who were at risk
for drug use, people say, because he spoke from
the heart. He spoke to them with
respect, with a sense of authority and with an inspiring
sense of passion.

He was a cop. A drug cop.
But there he was, in blue jeans and an open shirt, talking to a
roomful of kids about marijuana, cocaine
and heroin as if he were just an ordinary guy --
who knew a lot about drugs.

"Believe this ..." he would say.
And they did.

Nobody would ever question his honesty,
until an autopsy found lethal levels of heroin and
cocaine in his body. Now the community
is in shock, uncertain of what Constable
Schneider was really all about.

That afternoon, facing a group of skeptical
teens in a local school, Constable Schneider
handled the usual questions with aplomb.

Then a boy tossed him a curve ball.

"Have you ever tried drugs yourself?"
asked the kid point blank.

Some cops would bristle at a smart ass
question like that. The badge should be answer
enough. He was an honoured member
of one of the world's most respected police forces.
He busted drug dealers.

He could have said, "I won't even dignify
that question with an answer."

But Constable Schneider smiled, and with
a nod acknowledged that it was a fair question,
taken without insult.

"I have never in my life used drugs.
I've never even smoked a joint," he said.

Those who were there say it wasn't so
much what he said, as the way he said it -- that the
words had such resonance, you could
almost feel the message sinking home with the
audience.

"It was so heartfelt, and the way he
looked that kid straight in the eye, you didn't for a
moment doubt that it was true," recalled
Ray Crossley, an outreach worker who was
watching from the sidelines with a sense
of admiration.

When Barry Schneider took the stage,
youth counsellors and front-line drug workers like
Mr. Crossley just stepped back
and watched with a sense of awe.

"I mean, the guy was good," said Mr.
Crossley. "He could perform in front of a crowd like
you wouldn't believe."

Constable Schneider, he said, was able
to reach jaded kids who have grown up in a world
saturated with drugs. He could
reach kids armoured with teen cynicism. He could get to
kids who are dying to be cool, and who
could pick up a tab of coke between classes if they
wanted. Somehow he could convince
them that saying "no" showed strength and character.

"He was just great at connecting with
kids. Just great ..." Mr. Crossley's voice trails off.

Last November, Constable Schneider, the
father of two girls aged nine and 12, was found
dead at home. He had a history
of heart problems, and at first everyone thought that is
what killed him, suddenly, at 43.

His memorial service was the biggest
anyone can ever remember in the Comox Valley. It
was so big they held it in a cavernous
hangar at Canadian Forces Base Comox.

More than 600 people attended.

"Wow. What a testimony to Barry,"
Inspector Dave Zack, head of the Courtenay RCMP
detachment, said as he scanned the crowd
that day.

Spread out on a table were some of the
things that Constable Schneider loved in life. His
fishing gear. His golf clubs.
And everywhere you looked there were newspaper articles and
pictures about DARE -- the Drug Abuse
Resistance Education program that he had started
in Courtenay and which had spread to
other communities on Vancouver Island.

As a special memento people were given
a gold lapel ribbon with the DARE logo, a Mountie
emblem and the initials: BS.

BS. There is an irony to those
letters now that nobody in the Comox Valley wants to
contemplate.

Ten days after the community gave him
a hero's send off, the Coroners Service notified
Courtenay RCMP that toxicology findings
had detected a lethal concentration of heroin and
cocaine in Constable Schneider's body.
The initial post-mortem conclusion, that he had
died from coronary disease, was wrong.
Constable Schneider had died from a speedball --
a glamorous, potent cocktail of the
kind that killed comedian John Belushi and that a few
years ago nearly killed Dave Gahan,
the singer for Depeche Mode.

Two days later, with rumours flying,
Inspector Zack called a press conference and released
the information.

Since then Courtenay has been reeling,
while four senior investigators have been trying to
answer the questions everyone has.
What happened? How did Constable Schneider get the
drugs that killed him? How did he manage
to keep his addiction a secret? How long did he
use drugs? And why did the devoted father
and dedicated anti-drug crusader end up taking a
speedball?

Constable Schneider grew up in the Comox
Valley. Friends say that during the party-hearty
teen years, Barry was the guy who was
always missing when there was a wild bash.

"He just wasn't there," says Mr.
Crossley. "He wanted to be a cop. He was straight."

But in the Comox Valley, where woodlots
and farms slope down from the heights of
Forbidden Plateau to the blue Pacific,
being straight is not as easy as it looks.

The Comox Valley seems at first glance
to be an idyllic setting. A place where you can
raise kids in an environment that offers
the healthy distractions of snow sports in the winter,
and hiking, fishing and swimming in
the summer. You can play golf all year round in the
valley.

But the local needle exchange suggests
there is a darker side. First, you wonder why a
small town like Courtenay even needs
a needle exchange -- then you look at the statistics.

The health van delivers 9,000 needles
a month to its clients, who need only place a call to
get alcohol swabs, bleach, condoms and
fresh needles brought to their door.

The day I am in town talking to people
about Constable Schneider's death, the Comox
Valley Record unwittingly captures the
dichotomy of the community on its front page.

Under the headline, "Another day in Paradise,"
runs a picture of a man snowboarding while
two others are seen playing golf.
Next to it is the top news story: "Crack cocaine factor in
murder."

A counsellor is asked, "What gives? Why
does such a sweet little town have to give out
9,000 needles a month and deal with
crack murders?"

He sighs, and then explains the drug
subculture.

In the 1960s and '70s, hippies discovered
the Comox Valley. They flocked in, drawn by
the natural wonders. And they
brought with them a relaxed attitude about drugs.

Marijuana cultivation has long been a
big business in the valley. And to some, family values
mean being there to share that first
joint with your kids.

"In Vancouver," says the counsellor,
"I know maybe four people who regularly smoke
grass. Here, you can't turn around
without seeing somebody lighting up a joint."

Nearby Campbell River used to be known
for its salmon fishing. But now people call it the
heroin capital of Canada.

Mr. Crossley, who spends most of
his working day out on the streets, says what scares him
about the Comox Valley drug scene is
the way kids go straight to hard drugs.

"OK. When I was a kid, there were
gateway drugs. You tried grass, and then you stopped,
or you went to the next level, like
cocaine. That was another gateway. You might quit
then, after experimenting, or you might
go on to heroin. There were ways out.

"Nowadays, I find kids going straight
to coke. Or heroin. Or crack. I work with kids who
don't drink or smoke marijuana -- but
who use heroin.

"It's really shocking."

So that was the hometown Constable Schneider
came back to. For 11 years he worked the
drug beat, first in Burnaby, which took
him into Vancouver's notorious Downtown Eastside,
where you see people stumbling out of
back alleys and collapsing from drug overdoses, and
then in remote Bella Bella -- where
a lack of road access hasn't kept crack or heroin from
ravaging the community.

When Constable Schneider came home to
Courtenay, he knew all about the evil of drugs,
and convinced his commanding officers
to fight back with DARE. Until last week everyone
thought he was winning the war against
drugs in his own way. Nobody knew he was losing
his own battle.

***

Pubdate: Fri, 05 Jan 2001
Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)

VETERAN DRUG-ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DIES
OF HEROIN, COCAINE
OVERDOSE

COURTENAY -- He was the local drug expert,
the man who coordinated the RCMP's
drug-awareness programs on much of Vancouver
Island.

Constable Barry Schneider spoke to school
children, regularly lectured local audiences and
planned the drug exhibits at community
events.

But shocked police officers in this small
community revealed Thursday what they hadn't
thought possible: the 43-year-old Schneider,
a 23-year veteran of the force, died in
November of a drug overdose.

"We were completely devastated by this
news," Courtenay Inspector Dave Zack said.
"Barry had a tremendous knowledge as
to all aspects of drug abuse."

Schneider died Nov. 29 after collapsing
on the kitchen floor of his home around noon. His
panicked nine-year-old daughter Rachel
ran next door to the home of another police officer,
but efforts to revive him were in vain.

Of the 600 people who attended his funeral,
almost all believed Schneider had died of a
heart attack.

But a toxicology report done after the
autopsy revealed the presence of a lethal dose of
heroin and cocaine, forcing the RCMP
to reopen the investigation into Schneider's death
and the police handling of drugs.

The initial toxicology report was delivered
to police Dec. 15 and a special investigations unit
from Vancouver was assigned to the case.
When the toxicology results were confirmed
Tuesday, officers decided to make the
findings public.

The 55 RCMP officers in Courtenay were
told Wednesday and a news conference was held
Thursday to inform the public.

"Foul play is considered remote," RCMP
Corporal Grant Learned told reporters. "Any one
person, regardless of status in the
community or position in the community, may be the
victim of the power of seduction of
drugs."

Police admit Schneider may have got the
drugs through his job as a police officer, but they
still don't have all the answers.
They can't say conclusively where he got the drugs,
whether he was a regular user or whether
anyone else was involved.

Superintendent Jim Good, who is in charge
of the RCMP on Vancouver Island, has
assigned four senior officers to conduct
a complete investigation of the death and answer all
outstanding questions.

While police officers said they were
still numb, his family was devastated a second time by
the news.

"Hearing that drugs were involved in
Barry's death comes as a complete shock to everyone
and is devastating news to the entire
family," said friend Greg Phelps, who refused to
answer questions from reporters.

Learned asked reporters to leave the
family alone.

"They have been hurt twice in perhaps
the most difficult of ways." he said. "First, losing a
[family member] and having such tragic
news invade upon them."

Members of the community were shocked
by the news that a man who spoke so
passionately about the perils of drug
use could have fallen victim himself.

"I listened to him give a talk to parents
three years ago," said Jill Lane, the recently
appointed chairwoman of the Courtenay
school board. "It was very intense. He really
wanted to get the message out."

Lane acknowledged that the news will
affect the children who take part in the
drug-awareness programs, known as DARE,
that Schneider worked to organize.

"When the children hear of this .
. . they'll be concerned," she said, adding that she does
not yet know how the issue will be addressed
in the schools.

Jim Senior, a member of the local parent
advisory committee, said there will likely be mixed
reaction from the community.

"Some of the parents will be up in arms,"
Senior said. "This could really hurt the [DARE]
program."

Senior's son recently went through the
school-based drug awareness program.

"The information had quite an impact
him," Senior said, adding that he is sure his child,
who enters high school next year, will
understand the implications of the constable's death.
***
CN BC: Column: Another Dies As A Foolish Policy Endures

VICTORIA - The most bizarre thing about
the overdose death of an RCMP drug expert is
our shock.

In the courts they call it wilful blindness,
and it's no defence. There's no other way to
explain our willingness to see drug
users as some other species of tragic, wasted figures on
downtown sidewalks.

Constable Barry Schneider had a wife
and two young children. He was a 23-year RCMP
veteran who worked on drug abuse prevention
from the Courtenay detachment. No one
can explain how he ended up dead of
a heroin overdose.

As if it's easy to explain how more than
3,000 other people in B.C. died of drug-induced
causes since 1994, when then chief coroner
Vince Cain reviewed the heroin problem. He
recommended more treatment facilities;
more detox centres and sustained help for
recovering addicts. Most fundamentally,
he recommended treating addiction as a health
issue, not a criminal one, including
a recommendation that we prescribe heroin to people
who can't quit. The report was
largely ignored, although needle exchanges received more
money.

Dr. John Millar, then B.C.'s chief
medical officer, completed another report on injection
drug use in B.C. in 1998.
"Heroin in itself is not particularly devastating," he found. What
does more harm is the struggle to get
enough money to buy it, the varying purity and
dangerous additives and the sharing
of needles, which has lead to an HIV and hepatitis
epidemic.

Dr. Millar called for a provincial
substance abuse commission to replace the fractured
efforts spread across several ministries,
an immediate 50-per-cent increase in detox spaces
and free methadone. And he too
proposed a test of providing legal heroin for those who
qualify. A similar experiment
had already been conducted with Switzerland's 1,100
addicts. During the test, there
was a massive reduction in criminal activity and an increase
in employment -- and not one overdose
death. More than 80 people even quit drugs while
using free legal heroin.

Those recommendations were also basically
ignored. The provincial government has made
a late and very small effort at expanding
detox facilities, but they remain hopelessly
inadequate.

Drug-induced deaths -- overdoses, suicides
and other causes -- killed 385 people in B.C. in
1999, more than motor vehicle accidents.
Yet the government is making a major push to
reduce road deaths and a half-hearted
stab at reducing drug deaths.

Of course the blame doesn't just belong
to government. The number of deaths is not far off
the toll from breast cancer or prostate
cancer, but you don't see fund-raising runs or
awareness campaigns about overdoses.

The real problem is that we don't care
about these people. We dismiss them as losers,
crazies, weak. So politicians
-- of all parties -- don't have to pay much attention. The
government can under-fund treatment
services and methadone programs, so hopelessly long
waiting lists deter most people from
getting help.

And it's safe for them to treat the drug
problem as a neighbourhood nuisance, rather than as
a deadly tragedy.

It's a stupid response. Our approach
keeps a huge criminal industry alive, leaves addicts to
steal or sell their bodies for drugs,
denies them the help they need and perpetuates an
approach that has seen HIV infections
infect 25 per cent of intravenous drug users and Hep
C 90 per cent.

We chose to spend on hospitals for the
dying and police, not help. ( The Millar report
found extending methadone therapy to
1,500 more addicts, with counselling, would cost $6
million a year. It would save
$36 million in health care, policing and prison costs. ) And it
has not worked.

It's also morally reprehensible.
These aren't shadows on a downtown street. They were
our fathers and daughters, our friends
and neighbours, 15,000 people in B.C. who are at
risk. Not only do we fail to help
them, the way we deal with the problem helps condemn
them to death.

Constable Schneider's nine-year-old daughter
found her dad lying on the kitchen floor last
November, and ran for help. She's
already had to deal with his death, back when everyone
thought he'd had a heart attack.
Now she has to figure out what it means that he
overdosed.

What it means is that he died tragically,
victim of perhaps one bad decision on one bad day.
He's not a different man, or a different
father, because of the way he died.

He's another among the thousands who
have already died and thousands who will to die
until we begin treating drug use as
a serious health issue, not a criminal one. Until we begin
to care.

***
Pubdate: Fri, 05 Jan 2001
Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)

DRUG-AWARENESS OFFICER WROTE WITH PASSION
ABOUT THE EVILS OF
ADDICTION

Constable Barry Schneider spoke and wrote
about the perils of drug addiction and its effect
on individuals and communities.

He wrote the following letter to the
Comox Valley Record last Oct. 27:

"I was very disappointed in the tone
of your editorial which leaves the impression that the
so-called 'War on Drugs' also involves
Canada. This is simply not true. Canada has never
declared a war on drugs.

"In fact, Canada supports a multi-faceted
and multi-disciplinary approach as it is firmly
believed that there is no single solution
to this serious and complex problem. The RCMP
not only supports this point of view
but has never believed that enforcement is the only
solution to reducing the negative impacts
drugs have on our communities.

"It is clear however that the reduction
in drug supply plays a significant roll [sic] in creating
an atmosphere where education and the
reduction in demand for drugs can occur and
treatment can be most effective.

"Clearly, the Canadian approach of prevention,
education, enforcement, treatment and
counselling are the most likely to achieve
long-term success for drug-related issues.

"I think that most members of the community
will believe you are also misguided in your
assertion that drug use is a victimless
crime and what an adult person does with his or her
own body in their home is no one else's
business. This notwithstanding, research supports
the facts that if adults use drugs in
the home, there is a substantial increased usage level by
their children.

"Drugs are dangerous and threaten the
health, safety and well-being of not only the user but
also that of all citizens. If
users don't work they become a financial burden on their family
and/or society and many become involved
in criminal activity. If they do work we pay in
lost productivity, increased absenteeism,
increased medical and health insurance costs and
increased accidents, both on and off
the job.

"If a drug intoxicated driver kills or
injures someone, is that 'victimless'? When drug abusers
are abusive, violent or neglectful of
their families, is that 'victimless'?

"We must strike a balance between personal
liberties and individual responsibility.
Proponents lose sight of the moral implications
of legalization. With lower prices and
greater availability, drug use will
increase, especially among the most vulnerable youth,
working poor and chronically unemployed.

"With use comes addiction. Addicts
are enslaved to the drug itself and are often constrained
from holding meaningful employment,
having stable, productive relationships or exercising
many of their own rights.

"Crime, violence and drug use go hand
in hand. The fact is that legalization would not
change the chemical make-up of drugs
nor the impact they have on behaviour."

***
CN BC: 2 Letters to the Editor

Pubdate: Tue, 09 Jan 2001
Source: Province, The (CN BC)

Letter 1:
'HEY, HE WAS A GOOD COP'

'Remember him for how he lived, not how
he died'

I am really upset over the lack of compassion
the news media has shown towards the family
of RCMP Const. Barry Schneider,
who died just over a month ago.

These people are still mourning the loss
of their son, husband, father and friend.

Does it really matter how this man died?

Did he not dedicate his life to teaching
children and youth about the effects of drug and
alcohol abuse?

Although he died of a drug overdose,
he was still a great man and teacher.

RCMP officers are only human, and can
make mistakes and use bad judgment at times --
like the rest of us.

I found it in poor taste that the media
had a feeding frenzy with this story, and I hope
children can have the same respect for
the D.A.R.E. program now as they did when this
cop was alive.

To his family, I wish them all the best.

And to Barry, thanks for the great work
you have done in teaching our children.

Toni and Mario Graillon,

Powell River

Letter 2: Barry Schneider spent his professional
career working very hard to make a difference in
society.

Don't let his good work be overshadowed
by the fact that he was human and fell victim to a
disease that knows no boundaries.

What no one will ever know is how helpless
and hopeless he must have felt knowing he was
going down while not being able to ask
for help because of his position.

Barry's death is a profound lesson about
the lure of drugs.

Parents can use this as an example to
show their children that even though he spent his life
trying to get drugs off the streets
and later worked to teach children about the evils of drugs,
it wasn't enough to protect him from
them.

For others in a similar position as Barry,
the lesson is that no one is bulletproof when it
comes to this disease and that you can't
deal with it on your own.

I thank his family for the hard work
he put into trying to make the world a better place.
And although his death was tragic, I
can use it as an example when I tell my grandchildren
and others about how powerful this disease
is.

We don't have to use his name, just the
example that someone who was so against drugs
ended up dying from them.

What an anti-drug message.

Thank you for the message, and may you
rest in peace Barry.

B. Joneson, Vancouver

******
CN BC: LTE: Policeman's Death Saddens Us All

Pubdate: Sat, 06 Jan 2001
Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)

POLICEMAN'S DEATH SADDENS US ALL

The circumstances surrounding Constable
Barry Schneider's death have affected many of
us in various ways ( Veteran drug-enforcement
officer dies of heroin, cocaine overdose,
Jan. 5 ).

I knew Barry and worked with him for
several years. The past 36 hours have been
extremely emotional for me.

On Dec. 6, I attended the memorial
service for Barry in Comox. The cause of death was
initially reported as a heart attack
brought on by a blood clot.

The memorial was an RCMP and community
outpouring of remembrance attended by 700
or 800 people. Barry was instrumental
in instituting the DARE program on drug
awareness. He was fondly eulogized
by members of community organizations and
aboriginal leaders who thanked him for
saving young people in their communities. Many
public awareness programs used across
Canada were drafted by Barry.

I have known Barry and his family since
I was 12. He and I started our RCMP careers in
Burnaby. We then worked together
in the heroin unit of the RCMP drug section in
Vancouver. Barry moved on to other
detachments and finally to the Courtenay RCMP
drug section before taking over the
DARE program for the RCMP Island District.

Barry was an outgoing character with
a great sense of humour. I always knew him to be a
dedicated member of the Force and a
good, decent family man.

If you have not seen the news in the
last 36 hours, we have received the autopsy and
toxicology reports which have been exhaustively
reviewed so there is no mistake. The
cause of Barry's death was the result
of a lethal heroin overdose.

Words cannot describe the despair and
bewilderment many of us are feeling. I have had
many a tearful moment.

The RCMP, on learning of the results,
immediately contacted the press to show there was
no holding back of this information.
The possibility of foul play ( murder ) is virtually ruled
out, leaving only two options: Barry
committed suicide using a drug exhibit or Barry was a
"user" and accidentally overdosed.

I am very saddened and discouraged with
this outcome. My love and respect for Barry as a
person is not diminished, because I
know of the good work his program was doing. I feel
pretty hopeless in my efforts on the
war against drugs as it is apparent that it knows no
bounds as to the people it can victimize.

A person with whom I have developed an
unusual friendship has called several times to
console me. As a one-time major
cocaine importer and trafficker who I personally put in
jail, he gave me an insight into a world
most of us hopefully will never know. He told me
he has seen many good decent people
fall prey to cocaine and heroin. He told me he has
seen people die right in front of him
from overdoses and he just walked away so as not to
be interrogated by police.

I thank God for this friend and his continued
efforts to forge a new life. I ask that we all
pray for Barry and his family ( his
wife, two daughters, his sister, his brother and his mother
). I ask that we pray for the
RCMP officers, particularly those in drug enforcement, who
knew Barry. This is a sad and
demoralizing time for us.

I ask that we pray for the press to report
the facts, but stay away from sensationalization
and personal attacks and judgment, and
that they be sympathetic to the family, friends and
officers who have to deal with the emotions
of this event. I also ask that we pray for the
young people who would look at the work
that Barry has done with jaded cynical eyes and
pray that they see this as another lesson
that drugs are permeating every level of society and
bring down even the well intentioned.

Governments in Europe are about to come
under renewed pressure to decriminalise
cannabis after Belgium's decision to
legalise the personal use of le hasch for anyone over
the age of 18.

Under radical plans approved by the cabinet
on Friday, it will soon be legal to grow, import
and consume potentially unlimited amounts
of pot for personal use in Belgium.

"Any possession of cannabis for personal
consumption will no longer provoke a reaction
from the justice system unless its use
is considered to be problematic or creates a social
nuisance," the health minister, Magda
Aelvoet, said.

However, it will still be against the
law to deal in or supply cannabis, or to produce the drug
in industrial quantities for sale.
Nor will Belgium replicate the Netherlands' fabled network
of coffee shops selling cannabis cigarettes
over the counter. Hard drugs will continue to be
outlawed.

Italy, Spain and Portugal are reported
to be considering similar moves for cannabis and
Belgium's decision to relax its laws
will make the British government, which has repeatedly
refused to consider decriminalisation,
look increasingly isolated.

It has been legal since 1976 to buy and
use cannabis in any one of the Netherlands' 1,500
coffee shops. Within a few months,
Belgium will become the second country in the EU to
follow suit when it amends its own drugs
laws, which date back to 1921.

In Britain, the government has stated
that it will reject calls to decriminalise cannabis despite
a report from the Police Foundation
recommending more relaxed penalties for its use and
medical evidence that the drug eases
chronic pain.

Controversially, the Belgian government
has said it will not define what constitutes a
reasonable amount of pot, leaving it
up to the country's judiciary to set the of legal
precedent.

***
Belgian Lawmakers Can Now Smoke Pot In Their Offices

Pubdate: Tue, 23 Jan 2001
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)

BELGIAN LAWMAKERS CAN NOW SMOKE POT IN
THEIR OFFICES

Cannabis Use Is Legal, But Trafficking
Is Not

BRUSSELS -- Tourists will be able to
smoke spliffs while sitting in cafes in Brussels'
Grande Place and European Parliament
members will be able to puff marijuana in their
offices after the Belgian government
agreed to decriminalize cannabis.

Vincent van Quickenborne, 27, a Belgian
MP, is already promising to celebrate the
directive, which will take effect this
spring, by inhaling cannabis in parliament.

The move makes Belgium the second European
country after the Netherlands effectively
to decriminalize cannabis, and is bound
to encourage campaigners in other countries to relax
their rules.

A Belgian government statement said:
``The limited consumption of alcohol, tobacco and
cannabis is more and more socially accepted.

``There is no objective reason why cannabis
should be treated differently from alcohol and
tobacco.

``A society without drugs is an illusion.''

The directive, accepted by Guy Verhofstadt,
Belgium's prime minister, and his cabinet,
says cannabis use will be tolerated
among those 18 or older unless it leads to ``problematic''
consumption; creates a social nuisance;
or poses risks to others by, for example,
encouraging children to use the drug
or driving while under its effects.

Health Minister Magda Aelvoet said: ``All
possession for personal use won't elicit a reaction
from the judicial system. There'll
be no charges.''

The authorities will continue to prosecute
cannabis dealers, but not the growing of cannabis
plants for personal use.

Hard drugs will remain strictly illegal.

Belgians flock across the border to buy
and smoke cannabis in Holland's legalized ``coffee
shops.''

``We have to take account of reality,''
said Alain Gerlache, the prime minister's spokesman.

He did not believe drug users from other
countries would rush across to Belgium.

``If large groups of drug hooligans come
to Belgium to enjoy a freedom they would not
have in Britain, this could be considered
a problematic use,'' he said.

Officials acknowledged that permitting
the use of cannabis, but not its sale, could fuel the
black market. The judiciary will
decide what quantities individuals should reasonably be
allowed to possess for personal consumption,
or what constitutes ``problematic'' use.

The Belgian decision to permit cannabis
use is part of a comprehensive new drug strategy
that includes measures to discourage
and prevent drug use, improve treatment and
rehabilitation services, and crack down
on dealers.

The Netherlands decriminalized soft drugs
in 1976 and, under Dutch law, the country's
1,500 ``coffee shops'' can sell customers
up to five grams of cannabis as long as no public
nuisance is created.

The Belgian directive will not permit
coffee shops, nor will it technically legalize cannabis
possession. What it will do is
formalize the existing situation. One prosecutor told the
Belgian newspaper La Libre that he had
long ceased pursuing simple possession cases
because of a lack of resources.

AMSTERDAM- The Dutch model of 'soft'
drugs has advanced into French-speaking
territory. The controversial policy
of tolerance is no longer reserved to the Netherlands;
now Belgium no longer penalizes smoking
a joint. Nevertheless the Belgians are not
expected to receive much criticism;
more and more European cities have an informal policy
of tolerance. The department of
justice and the police would rather catch a crack dealer
than a hash smoker.

The Netherlands no longer stand alone;
this sends an important signal to other European
countries, Mr. R. Kerssemakers
of the Amsterdam-based Jellinek clinic thinks. The
countries that already follow the trend
of decriminalisation - such as Germany, Denmark,
England and Spain - might not fear putting
this into law as well. Studies show that there is
no direct relation between problematic
use and national drug policy - whether the policy is
liberal or repressive.

According to the European Monitoring
Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction ( EMCDDA )
in Lisbon one in five Europeans ( 45
million persons ) have tried cannabis at least once.
Around 15 million Europeans have 'experimented'
with cannabis in 1999. The United
Kingdom is the front runner with 10
percent of adults. Spain follows with 7 percent;
Denmark is at the lower end with 3 percent.
All other member states have a score of
maximally 5 percent. According
to EMCDDA most use is temporary in nature.

However, a harmonious European soft-drugs
policy will not arrive soon. France,
Luxemburg and Greece for instance do
not discriminate between hard and soft drugs.
There is also a difference in penalties.

Dutch policy of tolerance catches on
abroad

Possession of small amounts for personal
use is an offense in Germany, but it doesn't lead
to prosecution if there is no harm to
others. In Italy, the first time, the owner of a bag of
marijuana will be warned. If caught
again, his passport may be taken.

When the European Union will be expanded,
the contrast between countries that denounce
the tolerant policy and those that (
quietly ) favor it will only intensify, researcher D. Korf
of the University of Amsterdam predicts.
According to the criminologist, basically there wil
be countries that want to slowly legalise
softdrugs and others that adhere to the repressive
Swedish model.

Sweden is of the opinion that cannabis
use can result in psychological and physical
dependence and that it functions as
a 'gateway' to hard drugs. In firm governmental
campaigns the Swedes are warned that
smoking a joint can lead to depression and suicide.

Young offenders are not often put behind
bars, but are sent off to the forests for a year. 'A
great camp ground, but under extreme
state control'.

The Netherlands will keep its pioneering
position in the coming years since it is the only
country to have coffee shops - the Belgians
do not want any 'tea rooms' yet. There are
several countries with 'intermediate'
forms, says criminologist Korf. Denmark has a
liberated area in Copenhagen since the
nineteen seventies, where hash and marijuana are
sold.

Like in Spain, in certain member states
of Germany, drugs are sold under the counter in
bars for the young. Even Paris,
that fiercely criticised the Dutch policy of tolerance a few
years ago, has a more lenient drug policy.
France too, now has methadone programmes for
heroin addicts.

A gap still exists, however, between
the country-side and the big cities in Europe, says
Korf. 'The same is seen in the
Netherlands. We tend to forget that four in five towns have
no coffee shops'.

Supreme Court of Canada
to hear challengeto marijuana laws

WebPosted Fri Mar 16 07:27:07 2001
Written by CBC News Online staff

OTTAWA - A British Columbia marijuana advocate says he's euphoric
that the Supreme
Court of Canada agreed Thursday to hear his claims that smoking pot
is harmless.

David Malmo-Levigne of Vancouver and two other men have been
granted leave to
challenge the constitutionality of Canada's laws prohibiting marijuana
use.

"It will definitely scope out reasonable regulations on how it's
grown, and how it should be
distributed," said Malmo-Levigne. "That's what we want."

The appeal covers Malmo-Levigne's conviction and those Chris
Clay of London, Ont., and
Randy Caine of Langley, B.C.

The judge at Clay's original Ontario Superior Court trial, Justice
John McCart, said he was
convinced that smoking marijuana doesn't cause serious harm. But he
said it was up to
Parliament to decide on the legality of the drug, and ruled the charges
didn't infringe on
Clay's rights.

Malmo-Levigne hopes to appear before the Supreme Court by the
end of the year and says
the basis of his argument will be that marijuana is safe to smoke if
it's done properly.

The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the marijuana possession convictions
against
Malmo-Levine and Caine last June by a 2-1 decision.

The dissenting judge wrote the harm caused by marijuana use must
be significant for
Parliament to intervene using the criminal justice system.

Malmo-Levine says he'll argue that if smokers are in a good mood,
smoke organic pot and
don't overdo it, then using marijuana is absolutely harmless.

And he says he thinks he'll get the five votes on the supreme
court that he needs.